Obama administration joins the ranks of SOPA skeptics

In response to a petition at its We the People site, the White House has …

The Obama administration has joined the ranks of skeptics of the Stop Online Piracy Act. In an online statement released Saturday, three senior White House officials wrote that the administration "will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet."

The statement was made in response to a petition on the White House's "we the people" site asking the president to veto SOPA if it reached his desk. The officials—IP enforcement coordinator Victoria Espinel, CTO Aneesh Chopra, and cybersecurity coordinator Howard Schmidt—did not commit the president to vetoing SOPA. However, they laid out criteria for an anti-piracy bill that seems to clearly rule out SOPA and the Senate's Protect IP Act in their current form.

The White House seems most concerned with DNS-blocking, which is becoming the red-headed stepchild of SOPA provisions.

"Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security," the statement says. "Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online."

They said the White House cannot support legislation that "drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk." Both PIPA and SOPA would do exactly that.

The White House's concerns with SOPA and PIPA did not end with the DNS provisions, however. "Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent," the statement says. The administration is also opposed to "overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing."

The administration also wants legislation that is "narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity."

Combine all those concerns, and the statement is a fairly sweeping condemnation of SOPA and PIPA in their current form. Espinel and her colleagues appear to have left enough wiggle room in the statement to allow the president to sign a future version of the bill that addresses some, but not all, of the critics' concerns. But the bill's sponsors are now going to have to work hard to satisfy critics and build a consensus in favor of passage.

Issa hearing postponed

Meanwhile, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), a SOPA opponent, announced Saturday that he is postponing hearings on SOPA's DNS provisions that had been slated for Wednesday, January 18 before his House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"While I remain concerned about Senate action on the Protect IP Act, I am confident that flawed legislation will not be taken up by this House," Issa said. "Majority Leader Cantor has assured me that we will continue to work to address outstanding concerns and work to build consensus prior to any anti-piracy legislation coming before the House for a vote."

I've been talking about this with a few people since this morning. It's really annoying to hear "great but blah blah they suck anyway".Quit whining and go after entities that DO support sopa. There's still plenty of them out there. Be happy they released that statement -- the white house disagreeing with it could have a serious effect on the voting of the bill.

If you don't like the Obama Administration, there's no arrangement of words that could convince you they're against it. So how about you instead be happy the message isn't "We like SOPA and support it"?

"Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent," the statement says. The administration is also opposed to "overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing."

The administration also wants legislation that is "narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity."

Wow! Why does the White House officers have more common sense than the elected Representatives or Senators?!

Wow! Why does the White House officers have more common sense than the elected Representatives or Senators?!

That would be because of the way senators are apportioned, the senate's absurd super-majority requirements, and ridiculously uninformed and apathetic voter populace, low-pop/high-ignorance states/districts/voters and lobbyists are the tail that wags the dog in American politics.

Realistically, it's less "Obama Administration Joins the Ranks of SOPA Skeptics" than "Obama Administration Decides Not to Further Trample American's Rights Due to Upcoming Elections".

The article yesterday gives a distinct impression that only Republicans are pulling sudden 180s due to citizen outcry, but when the Obama does it the writeup sounds like he unilaterally decided SOPA was bad, and there's only a passing mention anywhere of the Democrats pulling sudden changes.

The article yesterday gives a distinct impression that only Republicans are pulling sudden 180s due to citizen outcry, but when the Obama does it the writeup sounds like he unilaterally decided SOPA was bad, and there's only a passing mention anywhere of the Democrats pulling sudden changes.

Had the Obama administration previously endorsed SOPA or PIPA? If so I wasn't aware of it.

Great, maybe he'll issue a signing statement saying how much he disagrees as he signs it into law.

Not to get too off topic, but, as far as I know, no president has EVER vetoed the NDAA. Also, the additional previsions added to the defense budget are powers the government either currently has via the PATROIT act or has already ruled as something they can do by, ya know, doing it already (see the assassination of an US citizen, albeit probably a major terrorist, in a foreign country). Seriously, not too many presidents have even discussed vetoing it. To do so would not only be political suicide, because he would have effectively defunded our military (both our troops, research projects, and defense contractors in the private sector), but it would also have been, more likely than not, overturned by the Senate (because we can’t exactly defund the military, I hear our boys and girls in Afghanistan would like to get paid).

There's a lot to criticize Obama about, believe me, but the NDAA's provisions are merely political posturing (note how it's now not legal to simply close down Guantanamo per NDAA provisions, even though, as Obama found out quite early, that nobody in the states will take the prisoners) done by the right to weaken the left and to add additional tools to their election bid for 2013 (namely, stating Obama is weak on terror because he doesn't like said provisions).

SOPA and PIPA, on the other hand, are bills that the public, both left and right, detest and that a lot of big name originations are not a fan of. I don’t see why he wouldn’t veto it, given the chance.

I'm happy to hear this, but I can't help thinking it's only due to his low poll numbers. It seems like he's pandering to everyone he can at this point. Especially considering that entertainment companies are some of his biggest contributors. I'm sure they won't like it. It's also a little annoying that he only came out against this after congressional support has began to falter. Whatever his reasons, I am glad that SOPA will not become law in it's current form.

The article yesterday gives a distinct impression that only Republicans are pulling sudden 180s due to citizen outcry, but when the Obama does it the writeup sounds like he unilaterally decided SOPA was bad, and there's only a passing mention anywhere of the Democrats pulling sudden changes.

Had the Obama administration previously endorsed SOPA or PIPA? If so I wasn't aware of it.

This will assure that the republicans will now unite in favor of SOPA. They will disagree with anything that the Administration says.

Leave the demagoguery at the door. If you're too stupid to see how much opposition has cropped up along many party lines due to constituent (and more importantly, lobbyist lines) outrage. That's your boggle.

I really hope you're being sarcastic. Unfortunately politics tends to bring out the stooges from all camps.

The article yesterday gives a distinct impression that only Republicans are pulling sudden 180s due to citizen outcry, but when the Obama does it the writeup sounds like he unilaterally decided SOPA was bad, and there's only a passing mention anywhere of the Democrats pulling sudden changes.

Had the Obama administration previously endorsed SOPA or PIPA? If so I wasn't aware of it.

I see nothing in that article that indicates support for SOPA per se. Especially no points on the really controversial issue that is highlighted here. All Biden says is that piracy of IP is theft. So people want to argue against that?

As for SOPA... People should remember that it is Congres that is proposing this bill - it was not initiated by the White House. Therefore the onerous provisions - which I agree are horrendous - have been forwarded by the writers of the bill.

"The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as H.R. 3261, is a bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors." [Wikipedia]

Not surprising to me that the main sponsor, typically the person most envolved in writing the bill, is a Texas Republican. So let's keep things straight here!

It's great that the Executive branch is opposing these bills in their current form, but we cannot stop the pressure yet. We need to kill these bills dead, and punish the lawmakers who supported it, even if they later recant their support. They need to be afraid of losing their jobs if they even *think* about messing with the free flow of communication online.

The reason to be so over the top in killing this, is the media giants are driven to maximize profits - that's what corporations do. So they will keep trying for new laws to restrict things, cause that's the only way they think they can make money (it's not, but they are living in the last century). We need lawmakers to say "hell no" even if offered huge bribes, um campaign contributions.

Enough of your stupid tribalism. Democrat, Republican, Hephilump, Woozle . . . these are labels and containers to keep you playing the ridiculous game of electing the same grifters and thieves over and over again.

No "party" is innocent. SOPA and PIPA should be all the proof you need that the only thing that will unite our elected officials is money, and the only thing that will make them run from these bills is the thought they would LOSE money.

My party, my sports team, my favorite wrestler . . . these all have the same amount of weight and value. Until the system actually represents the will of the people, stop blindly pushing the idea that either political camp is the "good guy."

I have liberal views, and yet one of the people pushing against this is a self-identified conservative. While he's doing what I want, I have no doubt that it has nothing to do with the good of our country and everything to do with his own personal gain. It's the same with all of them.

You can't make them see reason; they're being paid to ignore it. But when you make them see FEAR -- namely the fear they won't get paid -- then they come around. So drop the pretense and start voting for people based on what they have and haven't done instead of just pushing the button for your favorite tribe.

The article yesterday gives a distinct impression that only Republicans are pulling sudden 180s due to citizen outcry, but when the Obama does it the writeup sounds like he unilaterally decided SOPA was bad, and there's only a passing mention anywhere of the Democrats pulling sudden changes.

Had the Obama administration previously endorsed SOPA or PIPA? If so I wasn't aware of it.

I see nothing in that article that indicates support for SOPA per se. Especially no points on the really controversial issue that is highlighted here. All Biden says is that piracy of IP is theft. So people want to argue against that?

As for SOPA... People should remember that it is Congres that is proposing this bill - it was not initiated by the White House. Therefore the onerous provisions - which I agree are horrendous - have been forwarded by the writers of the bill.

"The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as H.R. 3261, is a bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors." [Wikipedia]

Not surprising to me that the main sponsor, typically the person most envolved in writing the bill, is a Texas Republican. So let's keep things straight here!

I agree the post does not mean the Whitehouse supports SOPA. What gets me is that last line, there are notable Democrats supporting the bill and helped author it.

The fact that ArsTechnica is a site I generally trusted to post stuff in a rational fashion, that no longer seems to be the case when they write false attention getting headlines.

The article yesterday gives a distinct impression that only Republicans are pulling sudden 180s due to citizen outcry, but when the Obama does it the writeup sounds like he unilaterally decided SOPA was bad, and there's only a passing mention anywhere of the Democrats pulling sudden changes.

Had the Obama administration previously endorsed SOPA or PIPA? If so I wasn't aware of it.

Not outright but they did allow the I.C.E. (which falls under the administration) take over of a bunch of websites with out proper lawful due process. They did a mea culpa in a few rare cases, nearly a year later, but the damage was already done.

disclaimer: I voted for the guy but the "change you can believe in" was a little oversold.

I agree the post does not mean the Whitehouse supports SOPA. What gets me is that last line, there are notable Democrats supporting the bill and helped author it.

The fact that ArsTechnica is a site I generally trusted to post stuff in a rational fashion, that no longer seems to be the case when they write false attention getting headlines.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but I still don't understand what you're complaining about. Yesterday's headline was "Under voter pressure, members of Congress backpedal (hard) on SOPA." Nothing about Republicans in the headline. In the story, I include Leahy, a Democrat, among the members of Congress who had changed their positions. I didn't include any other Democrats because I wasn't aware of any others who had changed their positions this week.

As for today's story, while the White House has changed its tone somewhat, it has *not* contradicted its previous positions (e.g. it never issued a statement of support for PIPA or SOPA) as far as I know. So we didn't say they did.

So what "false attention getting headlines" are you talking about and what specifically should I have done differently?

Quit whining and go after entities that DO support sopa. There's still plenty of them out there.

The perpetrators of SOPA and PIPA are:

1) The RIAA. (Recording Industry Association of America)2) The MPAA. (Motion Picture Association of America)3) The Chamber of Commerce.

These three are a particularly brain dead and fascist sector of The Corporate Oligarchy that assumes they are better at leading the USA than actual citizens, We The People. They rule via lobbyists and lots of MONEY.

There is one simple human behavior that doesn't penetrate into the heads of these oligarchs: If you treat customers with ABUSE, your customers will RETALIATE.

IOW: There is no greater INSPIRATION for customer PIRACY of media than the abusive attitudes of these three dunderhead corporate organizations and the vicious companies they represent. I doubt they'll ever learn. Therefore, I doubt resulting piracy will ever stop. (o_0)

Dear MPAA/RIAA,we win; you lose. try to pass a censorship law again and we WILL fight back. Change your business model or go the way of the dinosaurs and dodo birds. On a related note you will NEVER stop piracy completely so stop bribing elected officials to do your dirty work for you and GET A LIFE!!!sincerelythe Internet

The article yesterday gives a distinct impression that only Republicans are pulling sudden 180s due to citizen outcry, but when the Obama does it the writeup sounds like he unilaterally decided SOPA was bad, and there's only a passing mention anywhere of the Democrats pulling sudden changes.

Had the Obama administration previously endorsed SOPA or PIPA? If so I wasn't aware of it.

I see nothing in that article that indicates support for SOPA per se. Especially no points on the really controversial issue that is highlighted here. All Biden says is that piracy of IP is theft. So people want to argue against that?

As for SOPA... People should remember that it is Congres that is proposing this bill - it was not initiated by the White House. Therefore the onerous provisions - which I agree are horrendous - have been forwarded by the writers of the bill.

"The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), also known as H.R. 3261, is a bill that was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on October 26, 2011, by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of 12 initial co-sponsors." [Wikipedia]

Not surprising to me that the main sponsor, typically the person most envolved in writing the bill, is a Texas Republican. So let's keep things straight here!

So, you admit to being a stooge?

When politicians equate copyright infringement to theft, that's where SOPA/COICA/ProtectIP becomes law. Too bad you are too myopic to see the writing on the wall.

Interesting thing about these articles, they are focused on America, which is only right, since it is an American law, but honestly perhaps one or two could mention the international impact these laws could have; you know on people who didn't get to vote for these scumsuckers?

When politicians equate copyright infringement to theft, that's where SOPA/COICA/ProtectIP becomes law. Too bad you are too myopic to see the writing on the wall.

NO you are wrong here.

Calling the illegal copying of copywrited material theft is NOT the same as creating draconian laws that trample our rights. Only simplistic, disingenuous thinking tries to say it is. Even arrest for regular theft does not abrogate our constitutional rights the way SOPA would.

But this does not mean that there are no reasonable laws that might be passed to address the issue. I am no fan of RIAA, etc and agree that they abuse their financial power, but I do not think that we should throw out all rights to IP. I know that some people would like that, because they think they are entitled to everything for free. But I also see the need to protect the rights of artists and authors.

Somehow we need to come up with rational, balanced legislation. That is all I am saying.

When politicians equate copyright infringement to theft, that's where SOPA/COICA/ProtectIP becomes law. Too bad you are too myopic to see the writing on the wall.

NO you are wrong here.

Calling the illegal copying of copywrited material theft is NOT the same as creating draconian laws that trample our rights. Only simplistic, disingenuous thinking tries to say it is. Even arrest for regular theft does not abrogate our constitutional rights the way SOPA would.

But this does not mean that there are no reasonable laws that might be passed to address the issue. I am no fan of RIAA, etc and agree that they abuse their financial power, but I do not think that we should throw out all rights to IP. I know that some people would like that, because they think they are entitled to everything for free. But I also see the need to protect the rights of artists and authors.

Somehow we need to come up with rational, balanced legislation. That is all I am saying.

Accept my money when I want to give it...

Also, IP is fine for some time...say 5 to 10 years, so you can make a buck...but 50-70-...120 years? You're kidding me right?

Also, IP is fine for some time...say 5 to 10 years, so you can make a buck...but 50-70-...120 years? You're kidding me right?

The problem with setting it low to 5 or 10 years is that some IP takes 5 years to get to market after it has been approved. The patent system has been effective in producing technical progress, that isn't disputable. For certain types of IP you have to have strong government backing or else it won't get produced. The economics just aren't there naturally.

You can't really ban websites anyways, just DNS addresses. So angry geeks who are afraid of losing their torrented porn should calm the hell down.

I agree the post does not mean the Whitehouse supports SOPA. What gets me is that last line, there are notable Democrats supporting the bill and helped author it.

That shouldn't get you at all, Hollywood has always had more Democratic supporters due to their strong presence in California.

This whole idea that Democrats are the shining knights needs to be stomped into the ground. Obama made it clear on numerous occasions that he supports banks over people, only his deluded fanbots believe otherwise. Sadly we will have to deal with the bankster in office since the Republicans can only come up with a group of even worse sociopaths.

Holy crap! Can those of you who either rabidly hate or adoringly love Obama and his administration go fight on Fox News' forums or alternatively, get a room and leave the grown-ups here to talk about this without partisan, biased bickering. You guys maybe don't get how tiresome that is for the rest of us. Take your incessant cat fighting somewhere else. You already had your mind made up about whether this deserves condemnation or praise, so bugger off. Nobody cares to hear it.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.